I just can't get excited by conservatives who are listening hard for the distant sounds of herds of voters preparing to destroy Obama and his agenda. Yes, his approval ratings are falling, but his approval ratings were never going to remain at their inauguration highs; once you start making actual policy, rather than pretty promises, you invariably start pissing some people off. Yes, it turns out that FDR was more of a fluke than a model, and crises may not be such a good time for passing massive new agendas after all. Yes, the green shoots seem to have shrivelled.
But honestly, I feel like the punditariat needs to check its meds; the bipolar swings are starting to induce whiplash. The second derivative of unemployment perks up, and the economy is back on track, the stimulus is working, and we're all going to go to heaven when we die (and have excellent universal health care right up to that point). Retail figures fall, and Obama's presidency is over, climate change is going to kill us all if the recession doesn't get us first, and 95% of the Washington Post's columnists start bulk-pricing canned goods and ammunition.
I'm certainly not going to say that Obama is guaranteed re-election, or any part of his expansive agenda. But it's far, far too early to count him out.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
I think a great many of the voice screaming "Obama is done for!" are hoping for a self fulfilling prophesy.
And I tend to think that a great many of those proclaiming that the stimulus had worked and Obama had saved us all were doing the same.
Agreed
You're right, but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea. Let's face it, it worked for the Dems.
When people like Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Murtha, Reid, Kerry, Kennedy, Byrd, Schumer, Franken, Burris, Frank, etc. are steering the ship, do you expect sane people to sit by and not call "MAYDAY! MAYDAY!" ??
Agreed again. The tactic worked wonderfully against Bush. Midway thru his second term there was absolutely nothing he could have done without stiff opposition. If bush proposed the exact same health care reform the Obama is now proposing, he would have still been shouted down by everyone with a platform.
I'm getting this strange sense of daja vu. Is, I wonder, the shoe on the other foot?
But really, don't you think we get enough of this kind of stuff from stuffed suits like Chris Mathews? That a few weeks of policy coverage here (2 posts in a row) without interpreting it through the lens of political elections would be okay? It's just such a limiting perspective.
And I really do enjoy some of the debate; I think it's worthwhile.
Well, any prediction about the future necessarily involves probabilities just as a logical matter, but, if you are a conservative, you believe his economic program will make things worse, right? Therefore, barring some technological innovation or major unforeseen event, it's likely the economy will not be doing well for the next few years.
How many times has massive deficit spending on huge government programs gotten us out of a major recession?
And how many months of 500K job losses can a president go through and maintain his popularity?
That isn't the right question, politically. The right question is "How many times have recessions ended all by themselves in less than 4 years?"
And also "How often do presidents take credit for good economies, regardless of whether they had anything to do with it?"
"Make things worse" in such situations means "make things worse than they otherwise would have been", or to put it another way it has a negative effect. That doesn't necessarily mean a net negative overall result, because the new policies and programs are not the only factor.
If the economy improves it doesn't mean the stimulus and bailout programs worked, perhaps things would have improved more without them. If the economy gets worse it doesn't mean that the stimulus and bailout programs where a bad idea, perhaps things would have been even worse without them.
A problem with economics is that you can't run controlled experiments.
Of course he's going to win a second term. He's "too big to fail", and all that.
Historically speaking, it's almost unheard of for a modern President not to win terms. Thank goodness for the 22nd Amendment, or we really would be electing President's for life.
This is so clueless.
Historically speaking about modern presidents - Megan would be proud of that line - we've had two in thirty years not to win two terms.
If you want to go back further, there's a bunch of them, mostly republican, which is why the 22nd was brought in.
How many times has massive deficit spending on huge government programs gotten us out of a major recession?
WWII?
If you want to replicate that success we'll have to get to work on destroying a lot more than just Iraq....
Speaking of pundits, have you seen this list of the Most Influential Print/Online Columnists?
I know people here are going to howl about Krugman. Personally, I find numbers 2 and 4 very depressing. I don't mind Dowd because I don't think she is a true opinion maker. People read her because she's good fun (although I think Gail Collins is way funnier).
By the way, what happened to the post with the Ali G video?
I accidentally violated the embargo. It will be back up this evening.
That list is depressing. The top ten is filled with idiots from both sides of the aisle. I have to go to the second page to find rational commentators (Zakaria and Kristof).
Yeah, but what you also find in the second page is Karl Rove and Meghan McCain.
Just because Krugman is a fraud doesn't mean he isn't influential. If that's the criteria he really does belong in the top ten, no matter what you think of his ideas.
Huh? I don't think Krugman is a fraud. On the contrary, I think he is a quite exceptional columnist.
I also believe this is quite obvious. Only people with a certain political bent and incapable of recognizing merit where it clearly belongs say that he is a fraud.
I can't speak for tsotha, but when I refer to Krugman as a fraud, I am not impeaching his abilities as a columnist. On the contrary, his willingness to sacrifice reason to make a point and ingratiate himself with his chosen following makes him very influential (although not at all exceptional).
As an economist he is a fraud. When he stoops to political boosterism, he gives academic credibility to positions which deserve none.
He gives his opinion on a lot of stuff besides economics, but evidently people shouldn't see him as an expert on those opinions.
You have to give me examples of him "sacrificing reason" to make a political point, because I have seen none. Megan and other economists have tried to play gotcha with Krugman and have only managed to burn themselves in the process.
He got some things wrong, which he willingly admits. But he has a much better record than other experts which give their public opinions, and he has been consistently vindicated. He anticipated the housing bubble crisis 1 year before almost everybody else, as you can see his "google authors" conference (it's in youtube).
He his for some not-so-liberal positions, such as being strongly in favor of international trade, which earned him disputes with economists in the left.
So no, I don't think he is a fraud. I think you see fraud where it doesn't exist because, well, you are blinded by your political prefences.
If you actually look at the list and how it is created, it is pretty weird. All of the NYT columnists have the same "unique visitor" count. So, it appears and hits to the times web site is considered a hit for the columnist. Another ranking is Google hits. So, if Krugman writes something and 10 people criticize him and everyone else ignore him, he get 11 hits. If the negative comments outweigh the positive by 10:1, that is hardly influential.
Now, I would consider "influential" to mean moving the conversation in a specific direction. By that token, the data says nothing about that.
In the end, it is a pretty silly, and failed, attempt at ranking. Always check the demographics of a poll and how a ranking is determined. This ranking is so shoddy, there is nothing to discuss except how shoddy the ranking is.
Ric
While I agree that folks are getting carried away crowing about falling poll numbers, I think the argument is pretty salient that passive the massive reorganization of 35% of the economy (health care, energy, and financial services) in one summer on a huge rush might start seeming a little unwise to more moderate Democrats. It only takes a few defections to derail these plans, since there is so little effort to write these bills with Republican input.
He's losing large numbers of independents in bellweather states, which should start making moderate Dems skittish.
Everything is in place for a Republican resurgence. Everything, that is, except the Republicans. They don't seem to be doing much to get themselves ready. Obama is giving Republicans plenty of opportunity to reassert their principles (assuming, of course, that party leaders can remember what they are).
Maybe that will change when election season starts, but I'd like to see some action sooner.
The Republicans are leaderless. In 1994, they had strong creative leadership- today, not so much.
The problem the Republicans face at the national level is the people in charge are the same people who went hog-wild with spending when Bush was elected, after decades of preaching fiscal restraint. The small government message isn't going to be credible at least until some of the faces change. As a guy who supported the national party for a long, long time on the basis of limited government I'm now in the position of wondering whether voting Republican will advance that goal.
On the other hand, it's hard to imagine they could be worse than the bunch running the show at present.
It is looking more and more likely that moderate Democrats in the House and Senate will save Obama, much like they save Clinton in 93-94, though they may not be able to save themselves in the end.
Incumbent presidents are tough to beat outside a three-way race, but it would be amusing to see the reaction of Obamatons if Obama failed to do what dumb ole George W did.
Well that's obvious... it's because Rove and Cheney stole the election (both times) and Obama would be too noble to fight dirty.
Is California that distant from DC ?
The Ca. voters are about ready to
throw the rascals out, and the Head
Rascal claims they are Terrorists.
The Ca. Govt. is issuing IOUs to
banks, said banks being protected
from default by the FDIC.
Is Ca. really 13% of GDP ?
Yes, economic indicators go up, down,
and sideways, but they are all orbiting
a central Black Hole of Federal Debt,
which is not going anywhere; Have you
noticed that our creditors are viewing
this fact with increasing alarm ?
As to the price of Beans and Bullets;
Seriously, MM, you and your new spouse
need to have a place to go, and a plan
for getting there, if things go worst.
Sitting in an apartment, assault rifle
at the ready to defend your stack of
Sustain, in a large city, with a large
underclass, is not an optimal survival
strategy.
As you say: Sigh. Two more pivot points,
jewels in the political movement which
will stop Obama by 2010, long before
the end of his only term.
Neda Agha Soltan
Honduras
Neither is economic, but then, not
everything which affects economics is.
Heh. Just saw the daily Rasmussen presidential tracking poll
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
and 38% Strongly Disapprove of President Obama's performance, with only 30% Strongly Approving. 3% worse than any previous day, and the trends there are pretty obvious.
Of course, Rasmussen is consistently the most encouraging (from my point of view) poll on the subject...
Anyhow, you-all may be right that polls don't mean much, but I bet a lot of nervous Congressmen take them real seriously. And as a somewhat depressed conservative, biding my time till the American people wakes up, and hoping they do it before the Democratic Congress wrecks the place completely, it's hard not to be encouraged.
Ah, I wish we could go back to the days of Bush, when the punditry was much more sensible and discourse was much more reasonable and moderate... wait, what?
Megan, remember your own law of the party in power and the party out of power. The Republicans haven't gone totally insane, but it's early.
Check out #27 on the Most Influential Print/Online Columnists...
Obama still has a 49% approval rating in Ohio but his numbers have dropped from 62% in 2 months. I happened to have called Ohio voters for McCain and my impression was that voters there people saw something in Obama. The ineffable may be vaporizing there.
Given the gross incompetence - which is 144 times worse than normal incompetence - that Mikey Steele and the boys at RINOCentral are showing, Megan is all too correct. Chauncey could declare that Ra, the Egyptian Sun God, is the fountain of all ecomomic wisdom and the Republicant's would find a way to let him look profound.
We have a stimulus bill that was a complete debacle. COMPLETE. Nobody read it, or could have read it. It is demontrably nothing more than a mash-up of old porky bills from the Dem's checkered past. It was 100% borrowed, against an already TARP-bloated deficit. And now even the GAO is pointing out that it's not even having a placebo effect. Handing out PEZ would have done more good, and yielded far less corruption.
Barney Frank is up to his old shenanigans over at Fannie and Freddie.
The House just passed what can only be viewed as a Catastrophic Energy Bill.
Three Words: Senator Al Franken
Chauncey now owns GM, has mandated the sale of Chrysler, and controls a big chunk of Wall Street.
Etc.
And even with all of these, plus an Afghan war that's not going particularly well (get any concessions to move armor across Russia, Chauncey-boy? No? Don't worry, the press has your back...), a Treasury department still without lieutenants, a Vice President who would give Bullwinkle Moose a run for the title "most oblivious..." Etc., Etc., Etc.
We still here questions re: whether Sampson had sex on his first date, or whether Michael Jackson was buried with his glove on.
Steele would have to kick it up three gears just to become "lethargic."
Rush Limbaugh is having the time of his life. This won't move the needle, since his audience is already anti-Obama, but the last time Limbaugh had it so good was in the Lewinski days. Obama-nomics is like shooting fish in a barrel.
The man isn't a lightweight, he's an empty suit.
You don't understand. If the Reps come out publicly against the O, they will discredit the very comcept of opposition, so the only hope is to support stability and seek a diplomatic solution with the Dems.
That was excellent... Bravo!
What's *really* funny is to watch the NYS Senate, who actually tried to do the whole "coalition" thing. Didn't work out so well...
I don't think Republicans are looking at this data and saying good, Obama won't be reelected. I think they're looking at it and saying the country is becoming more ambivalent about Obama's policies, and thus those Congressmen/women that support them. Maybe we have a chance to at least narrow the gap on the majority, if not win back a majority. God willing this recession will have passed by 2012, but by then there will be a lot of other things to judge Obama on, particularly if the Republicans can win back or get close to winning back the Senate or House.
This is probably true. For one thing, they can't afford to focus too much on 2012. For another, if the Republicans can take back the House or Senate they can block Obama even if they aren't able to enact their own agenda. Domestically, at least, controlling Congress is much more important than controlling the White House.
But it's far, far too early to count him out.
Gee, how charitable of you, Megan.
Aren't any of you old enough to remember Regan's first term? Unemployment -- and general economic pain -- peaked right around the mid term elections (late 1982). In other words, later in his term relative to where we are with Obama right now, and closer to the presidential election than where we are right now. Seems to me Regan did all right.
Of course, there's no guarantee of a repeat performance, but given the fact that Obama's Keynesian stimulus is even larger than the quite considerable Keynesian stimulus employed by Reagan and the fact that he's got more time to work with, I'm personally very confident Obama will be an eight year president. Moreover, there's a strong chance Obama will be able to head to the polls with a voter-pleasing extension of social insurance under his belt.
The only people harping about a failed presidency or politically disastrous economy for Obama are concern trolls and other types of disingenuous critics. Absolutely nobody back in, say, November or December envisioned a robustly growing economy by mid summer. I continue to believe the bulk of the prognostication is likely accurate: an economy beginning to grow some time in the second half of the year -- my own guess is October or November -- followed by a rather tepidly growing economy in much of 2010 (which means Obama will get a bloody nose in the mid-terms, and should expect modestly diminished margins in the House). But I think it's likely we'll see considerably stronger growth in 2011 and 2012. Add one part incumbent presidency and one part briskly growing economy, and the result is a landslide reelection.
When it comes to presidential politics, I believe the correct, explicatory theory is economic determinism. Get the timing right (like Reagan or Clinton) and you'll do fine. Get the timing wrong (like Carter or George H.W. Bush) and you're toast. Obama's timing looks a lot more like Regan's to my eyes.
Mostly accurate, but don't forget that Volker started contracting the money supply even before Reagan was elected. It was the right prescription, but a lot of the malaise that cost Carter the election and gave Reagan heartburn early on was due to very tight money.
We needed to "Whip Inflation Now," as you recall...
It would be nice if the Republicans had more to say than "We're not Obama." Not that that's a bad line, but governing would require a bit more.
Why not? Obama managed to win with no policy of his own beyond, "I'm not Bush", and isn't he doing a great job governing? [/sarcasm]
Haven't we learned by now? Getting re-elected is almost entirely about how good you are at campaigning, and almost nothing about how well you did in the previous four years.
Obama's the kind of guy who will struggle against a theoretical, generic Republican (where people are voting on policy), but then stomp all over an actual opponent (where people are voting on like-ability and such...)